[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RAIDframe: what if a disc fails during copyback
> So you have drives A, B, and C. A and B were live. Let's say B is the
> one that failed. You reconstructed onto C and have been running with A
> and C.
> Now you have a new B (which in this case is the same hardware with new
> firmware) and want to put it back into service. I'm not sure whether
> you want to put it into service in place of A or in place of C. I'm
> going to assume C.
> So, you'd pull C, replace it with B
No. I don't pull C. I re-add B (I have lots of empty slots).
> and initiate a reconstruct
No, a copyback (raidctl -B).
> which for RAID 1 means copying from A to B.
I don't know. I would expect it to copy from C to B.
> > 1. The replaced component fails
> Is this B? Or C? Because it sounds to me as though C would be out of
> service at this point.
I mean B.
> > 2. The spare fails
> Which is "the spare"?
> Are you running with a hot spare?
Yes. I added C as a hot spare when B failed and started a reconstruction.
> I think a hot spare failing means nothing until/unless RAIDframe
> tries to fall back on it.
> > 3. The other, non-replaced component fails?
> That would be A?
> Based on the assumption that RAIDframe RAID 1 cannot handle more than
> two drives (always true as far as I know, and the 9.0 raidctl(8) manpage
> says it's still true as of 9.0)
The RAID-1 I'm speaking of does only have to components, but I did operate
a RAIDframe RAID-1 on three components with 5.1 or something.
Main Index |
Thread Index |